Reimagining feedback and performance reviews
Why are organisations continuing to have Annual Performance Reviews?
by Peter Fay
It's that time of year again. There’s a specific kind of administrative year-end dread. HR systems are pinging, managers are scrambling to gather six-to-twelve months of evidence and examples, and employees are eager to hear the outcomes of Annual Performance Reviews, most of the time ready for disagreement or disillusionment.
For decades, this milestone-style process — often a single, high-stakes meeting coupled with a bureaucratic template - has been the cornerstone of corporate performance management. It’s intended to be the engine of growth, development, and determining reward.
But for many, it’s become a mandatory, tick-box exercise that does nothing to foster a high-performing organisation. It’s archaic, backward-looking, and fundamentally broken.
The Problem with this Annual “Bottleneck”
Think about the process. A year’s worth of work is compressed into a 60-minute discussion (if you’re lucky) and a handful of ratings. This approach creates several critical issues:
The Recency Bias Trap: The work done in the last four weeks is disproportionately weighted, overshadowing consistent efforts from months ago.
A Focus on Failure: Reviews often highlight past shortcomings instead of coaching for future success. It's an autopsy, not a physical.
The Administrative Avalanche: Managers spend weeks compiling data, creating a massive, inefficient bottleneck right when teams should be focused on year-end goals.
No Time for Adjustment: Feedback delivered once a year is like trying to course-correct a ship a minute before it hits an iceberg. It’s too late.
In today's agile, fast-paced work environment, this model is universally loathed by all constituents - Managers, Team Members and HR.
Reimagining Feedback: From Milestone to Movement
We know performance management must happen. Companies need a structural process to assess organisational health, allocate resources, and ensure reward is tied to impact. The goal isn't to eliminate performance assessment; it's to decouple the developmental feedback from the administrative timeline.
The solution lies in shifting to a continuous performance development model, where feedback is frequent, informal, and integrated into the workflow.
The Regular Check-in (Weekly/Bi-Weekly)
Instead of waiting for a calendar reminder, feedback should be a natural part of the manager-team member relationship. This can be as simple as:
1:1 Check-ins: Dedicate 5-10 minutes of every meeting to coaching (What are you struggling with? How can I support you with it?) and recognition (What did you nail this week?).
Immediate, Contextual Feedback: If an employee delivers a great presentation, the feedback should happen 10 minutes after the meeting, not 10 months later. Make it about the specific action, not the person.
The Structured Quarterly Conversation
While daily feedback is vital, a structure is still needed. Instead of one massive annual review, institute short, focused quarterly "Growth Conversations."
These are future-focused, discussing skill development, career path, and goal alignment for the next 90 days.
They serve as a "performance pulse" that prevents any major surprises when the annual assessment (used primarily for compensation and organisational reporting) finally arrives.
By separating the act of regular, enabling feedback from the administrative necessity of annual assessment, companies empower their team members to constantly iterate and improve. It removes the stress, minimises the time-drain, and turns "performance management" into what it should be: a continuous system for enabling high performance.
As the year winds down, don’t just tick the boxes. Use this time to commit to a fundamentally different, more human, and far more effective approach to how you manage—and inspire—performance in 2026.
Reach out to our team for more information on reimagining the feedback process.
